Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the category of harm Miss Y’s children were recorded suffering from, or at risk of suffering from, during a child protection conference. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the category her children were recorded suffering from, or at risk of suffering from, during a child protection conference. She says there should be different categories to choose from.
2. Miss Y also complains about her children being subject to a child protection plan. She says she has been judged and scrutinised.
3. Miss Y describes feeling unsupported, with the situation feeling worse over time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss Y and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss Y is unhappy that her children are subject to child protection plans. She says this has been ongoing for two years and feels this is not ok. Miss Y came to us previously about this, and we concluded that we would not investigate this because there was insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. We do not reconsider complaints about the same thing and therefore will not investigate this part of the complaint.
9. Miss Y complains that the category of harm her children were considered suffering from, or at risk of suffering from, during a child protection conference. She says the category was previously recorded as emotional harm, but this changed to neglect. Miss Y feels this is unfair. She says the Council is trying to make people fit into categories so that parents can be accused of being abusers. Miss Y believes there should be alternative categories to choose from, as her family do not fit into the categories available.
10. Child protection is not focussed on matters of guilt or innocence of adults, but on reducing or eliminating risk of serious harm to children. The definitions of harm categories in child protection case conferences are legally grounded in The Children Act (1989) and further outlined in statutory guidance. There are four official categories of harm: physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse and neglect. The categories of harm are defined in law, and the Council cannot shift from this. I understand Miss Y feels the categories do not fully recognise her family situation, but the Council cannot reinvent categories outside of the law.
11. The Council explained that the decision-making process at a child protection conference involves careful consideration of all information presented. It said that final decisions, including categories of harm, must reflect the best interests of the children involved. I am satisfied the Council considered information available to it and made a balanced judgement when determining the category for each of Miss Y’s children. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and therefore we will not investigate this complaint.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether somebody disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
13. Miss Y’s children later progressed from child protection plans to child in need plans. Miss Y described feeling unsupported. The Council explained that a child in need plan is voluntary and requires consent. Miss Y withdrew consent; therefore, her case has been closed. If Miss Y feels she requires further support, she can approach the Council for this.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman